JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter to be called as “the plaintiffs”) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.08.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Kasauli, District Solan, H.P., in an application No. 73/6, under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the application for allowing the plaintiffs to re-examine PW-5, was dismissed. 2. Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be called as “the defendants”) and also sought directions from the Court to restrain the defendants from causing any type of interference in the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 3/10, Khasra No. 178/81, 84, 87, 89, 91, 94, 103, 111, 114, 116, 119, 131, 138, 139, 177/81 all Kita 12, measuring 24-16 Bighas and Khata/Khatauni No. 2/6, Khasra No. 172/19, measuring 1-15 Bighas, situated in Mauza Dochi, Pargana Basal, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter to be called as “the suit land”) and further prayer to restrain the defendants from realizing the amount of compensation, lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. As per the plaintiffs, they are owners-in-possession of the suit land, which was purchased by the husband and father of the plaintiffs namely late Sh. Dhani Ram, in the year 1963-64, from Smt. Dropti, widow of late Sh. Khaiali Ram, for a consideration of RS. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand), which amount was duly paid by late Sh. Dhani Ram in cash, after obtaining loan from friends and relatives. After purchasing the suit land, the plaintiffs were using the land for cultivation and they have also raised a cow shed, out houses garage etc. thereon. The suit land is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs, however, revenue record showing the names of defendants No. 1 to 5 as co-owners in the suit land. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants are resident of Villge Gusam and defendants No. 4 & 5 are residing in Village Dochi out of love and affection, as the husband and father of the plaintiff, late Sh. As per the plaintiffs, the defendants are resident of Villge Gusam and defendants No. 4 & 5 are residing in Village Dochi out of love and affection, as the husband and father of the plaintiff, late Sh. Dhani Ram has given some land to their younger brother, Gian Chand and also gave him a house with clear understanding that he will not sell or dispose of the same, nor he will create any charge on the house and he will hand over the possession of the land and house as and when demanded by Gian Chand. It is averred in the petition that the land was purchased by late Sh. Dhani Ram for a consideration of RS. 2,000/- and after his death, the plaintiffs are in exclusive and peaceful possession of the suit land and the fact of ownership and possession of late Sh. Dhani Ram was also admitted by Sadh Ram, Sant Ram, Gian Chand and Karam Chand, in a family settlement dated 22.05.1974, whereas defendant No. 1, Madan Lal is a property dealer and out of greed in connivance with the Revenue Department, got the mutation attested in his and in favour of his sisters. Plaintiff No. 1, being an illiterate villager, was not aware of the said settlement and in the month of March, 2009, when the house was being whitewashed, she found some papers and only then she came to know about that fact. It is alleged that defendant No. 1, only to harass the plaintiffs, started threatening to interfere with their possession and with ulterior mala fide motive, filed a civil suit No. 461 of 2006/2003 for injunction, qua portion of the suit land i.e., Khasra No. 131 and 138. Even defendant No. 2, in collusion with other defendants has also filed a civil suit No. 24/1 of 2009 for injunction, qua portion of suit land i.e., Khasra No. 131, 138 and 139. 3. By filing reply, the defendants resisted and contested the claim of the plaintiffs and raised preliminary objections qua estoppel on account of acts, conduct deeds acquiescence, limitation, cause of action and locus standi. On merits, the defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It was also averred in the reply that the suit land is joint land, which was not yet partitioned and the partition proceedings are pending in the Court of learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. On merits, the defendants denied the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. It was also averred in the reply that the suit land is joint land, which was not yet partitioned and the partition proceedings are pending in the Court of learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. The defendants denied the relinquishment or abandonment of rights over the suit land and averred that the land was purchased by their brother, in the year 1964 and mutation was attested in accordance with law. Thus, they prayed that the application may be dismissed with costs. 4. The plaintiff, by filing replication, refuted the allegations of the defendants, as made in the reply. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 6. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned senior Counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the learned trial Court after completion of pleadings have framed the issues and the case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence. After closure of the plaintiff’s evidence when the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application, under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act for recalling one of their witness, i.e. PW-5, Sh. Jia Lal. The learned trial Court vide order dated 09.08.2016, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs. He further argued that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it for not allowing the plaintiffs to call the witness for re-examination. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned Counsel for the defendants has argued that there is no justification to call the witness for re-examination and the impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court, needs no interference. 8. In rebuttal, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned senior Counsel has argued that PW-5, Jia Lal, has not supported the facts in his cross-examination, which has been stated by him in his examination-in-chief, so ends of justice demands that the witness should be re-called and order dated 09.08.2016, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and application be allowed. 9. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records in detail. 10. 9. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the records in detail. 10. At the stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs in their application, under Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 151 CPC, have categorically stated that the defendants were never remained in possession of the suit land, but in his very short cross-examination conducted by learned defence counsel, he has admitted that defendants i.e, Sh. Gian Chand, is cultivating the land, Sh. Karam Chand is cutting the grass from land and Sh. Madan Lal is plowing the suit land and the land is joint amongst all the brothers. It was further averred therein that the statement made by the witness in his examination-in-chief is correct, whereas the contents of his cross-examination are in-correct, hence the statement is required to be clarified. However, this fact is totally denied by the defendants in their reply. The defendants further averred that the purpose of re-examination is not to elucidate veracity of truth and the same is to be considered by the Court at the time of cross-examination, the witness has only mentioned genuine facts and feeling anxious from the true statement of the witness, the plaintiff moved this application. 11. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they are owners-in-possession over the suit land and revenue entries depicting the defendants to be co-owners in possession over the suit land alongwith the plaintiffs are not binding their rights. Apart from PW-5, four other witnesses were examined by the plaintiffs to support their case, but the statement made by this witness in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination are contrary. The purpose of Section 137 of the Evidence Act, is to give an opportunity to the party calling the witness to re-examine him after his cross-examination, if some new facts arises in his cross-examination requiring elucidation of the matter in dispute, but if the version given by the witness in his examination-in-chief stood differentiate to some extent from the facts of his cross-examination, it cannot be said to be a ground for re-examination of the witness. 12. 12. In the above circumstances, if re-examination of the witness is allowed on the grounds that the witness when cross-examined has stated the truth or something contrary to what he has stated in his examination-in-chief, the basic principle of cross-examination of the witness to bring the truth will be frustrated. 13. In view of the above stated facts, I find no illegality in the orders passed by the learned trial Court and the present petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 3rd May, 2017. 14. In view of the aforesaid terms, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.